Wikipedia:Peer review/DAMS GD-01/archive1

DAMS GD-01[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hello all, I have just created this article and I would appreciate any suggestions on how to improve it.

Thanks, --Midgrid (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dbratland (talk · contribs)[edit]

For the citation of Unraced...Formula One's lost cars, my normal practice is to use the |url= field of {{Citation}} and point to the book on Google Books i.e. |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gjnG3j5hOEwC&pg=PA105 where &PA### is the page number. Except in cases where the page you cite is not available, such as page 124 for example.

Unfortunately, only one of the pages I cite in the article is available on Google Books, but I've included it anyway.--Midgrid (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, because this book is used several times, it's kind of distracting to see it cited five times in references just because the page numbers are different. One option is to have only one citation which says <ref name=unraced>{{cite book|last=Collins|first=Sam|title=Unraced...Formula One's lost cars|chapter=DAMS GD-01|publisher=Veloce Publishing|year=2007|pages=8-14, 122 |isbn=978-18458-4084-6}}</ref> and then for each inline citation, use superscript to give the specific page number, like <ref name=unraced/>^{p. 14}. I saw this done on a recent Featured Article; I'll point it out if I can remember which one.

Hmmm, call it personal preference, but I think I would find this option more distracting! Might the style of referencing used in Forti be an suitable alternative?--Midgrid (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC) See below.--Midgrid (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Alternatively, use Harvard style, aka Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. I like Harvard style a lot, using {{harv}} in combination with {{citation}}, but everyone else seems to loathe it.

~~I'm afraid that I'm one of those people who doesn't like the Harvard style of referencing.--Midgrid (talk) 17:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)~~ Ignore that, I misinterpreted how this system works. I'll have a go at reformatting the references later.--Midgrid (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Midgrid (talk) 22:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the infobox racing car, the usual practice is not to write Length Unknown, but instead to just leave any fields you don't have data for blank. It serves the same purpose and reduces visual clutter. "Unknown" is also incorrect -- the data is known, just not by us.

Done.--Midgrid (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{convert}} for all of the statistics like the capacity=3.0 L field, maximum power of 610 bhp, etc.

Sorry, I'm not too familiar with non-metric units. Which are the best choices for these two fields to convert to?--Midgrid (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's cubic inches for displacement, 3.0 L (180 cu in) and kilowatts for brake horsepower, 610 bhp (450 kW). See Template:Convert#Parameters and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Units.--Dbratland (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Note that I haven't done anything to "a new unit for the three-litre era of F1 that began in 1995" in the text because this isn't meant to be a technical description.--Midgrid (talk) 17:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article leans heavily on Wikilinks to make sense. This is fine but it is a little challenging to the general reader to have to read many sub-articles to make sense of it. I would consider adding a little bit of gloss or explanation for some of the more obscure linked terms. For example, the lead could say:
The DAMS GD-01 was an unraced Formula One (F1) car used by the French motorsport team, Driot-Arnoux Motor Sport (DAMS). The GD-01 was designed and built by a collaboration of DAMS and Reynard engineers from 1994 to 1995, and was intended to establish the team—which had achieved considerable success in lower categories—in Formula One, the premier FIA class. But a continuing lack of finance meant that the team never entered the championship, despite completing construction of the chassis and conducting some testing.
The linked article says F1 is the premier class, but this gives you a little clue without having to click on the link. Another example:
It proved to be off the pace due to its cautious bodywork and aerodynamic design, indicating that it would need a thorough development programme in order for it to compete effectively in Formula One, particularly with the introduction of the 107% rule, which eliminated drivers too far behind the pace of the pole position, for the 1996 season.
Might do the same for a few more opaque terms, like Elf fuel, etc. It has Goodyear tires, but what size?

Done. Regarding tyres, the size isn't considered to be important during this period in F1 history, as Goodyear had a supply monopoly and all F1-specification tyres were the same size.--Midgrid (talk) 17:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another strategy to deal with the thick forest of Wikilinks is to get rid of as many as you can. I'm thinking of French and British, for example. Everyone knows what France and the UK are and they can get by without Wikilinks for common words like this.--Dbratland (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although I didn't think any of the links apart from those two were trivial enough to be removed.--Midgrid (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments!--Midgrid (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! By the way... --Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! Sadly my knowledge of bikes is extremely limited, but I'll take a look at it from a layman's perspective when I have some time.--Midgrid (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Apterygial (talk · contribs)[edit]

Interesting article! Note that I am deliberately picky with my reviews, and the issues I raise are not necessarily problems I had, but are things which could create trouble in the future, depending on where you want to go with the article.

First of all, I love the way this PR is filed in "everyday life".
Perhaps change the first Formula One link to Formula One car, and link the second to the generic page. Could probably get away with moving the acronym there too.
As laborious as it is, FIA should be spelled out on first mention.
Link chassis.
"conducting some testing." The word "some" always seems a little unprofessional. Maybe "limited"? By
"In order to design and build a competitive Formula One car". A problem which is developing here is that you are switching between "F1" and "Formula One". Would it be acceptable to change all to "Formula One"?
"...but progress was slow due to limited finance." Maybe "limited financial backing"? And again later? Something about that sentence bugs me.
The second sentence of the Construction sentence is pretty long; you could probably split it off after "...its 24-hour race", and say "In addition, changes to the sport's...".
Maybe hyphens to stop the sentence run between "regulations" and "as a", and "Grand Prix" and "further hindered" (if my convoluted way of explaining this is too convoluted, let me know).
Get that Larrousse link in.

It's already linked earlier in the paragraph. ;) --Midgrid (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes it is. Aptery gial 20:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to mention the Evin Law, you really have to explain it, which I think means that you are probably better off without it.
"...due to the modifications it would have to go in order to comply with the rules." Maybe "...due to the modifications which would have to take place in order to comply with the rules."

That was meant to be "undergo", but I think your wording sounds better anyway.--Midgrid (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Xtrac gearboxes were also used in the Minardi M195 and Simtek 951 chassis in 1995." Is this really needed?

I think it's certainly worth including, as it emphasises the team's reliance on customer parts.--Midgrid (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"to go racing" would probably be better as "to race" (NASCAR fans may disagree).

Just those little niggles. Aptery gial 07:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments! I'll make these changes when I have some more time.--Midgrid (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all of your points. Thanks again for the comments.--Midgrid (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]